------- Comment #11 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2009-04-29 13:21 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> As a consequence, since NULL can not in an obvious way be a pointer, there is
> no obvious warning that can be generated.
Of course there is. NULL with gcc is not 0, 0L or (void*)0, it is __null. And
gcc can make __null be whatever it wants, can it not? The same way it can warn
about converting __null to integer.
> The situation will be different with the upcoming C++1x standard where there
> is null_ptr.
Gcc already in practice has null_ptr. It's called __null. What would be the
point of __null otherwise, to have a really sophisticated way to write 0?
--
l dot lunak at suse dot cz changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WONTFIX |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35669
